Authentication

How does God authenticate with all of humanity?

What protocol does the supreme deity use to confirm communication with human kind?

What procedure or algorithm does God use to ensure we do not confuse divine communications with those of a false agent who spoofs divinity?

Authentication is a serous issue. Sometimes the problems of authentication can be solved by a familiar voice, a familiar face, a secret handshake, a secret knock, or a secret password. But, even these security tokens can be compromised. For centuries, the greatest minds have toiled to solve the problems that come with establishing secure authentication. This search continues today because very important people have realized that false security is far worse than no security at all.

Just ask the Queen Mary of Scots.

So, when a preacher preaches or when a small still voice speaks in your heart, how do you authenticate that voice as God? How do you know that communication isn't forged or compromised in some way?

When a lucid vision compels you to engage in a certain action, how do you authenticate that message?

With the Bible-- God's Word?

And how is God's Word authenticated?

By miracles?

Miracles seem to authenticate God within the scriptures themselves.

But what agent outside of the Bible authenticates those stories of yesteryear to a modern society-- especially when Biblical archaeology and document analysis undermine a literal reading of the Bible?

In short-- how to you prove that your God is really speaking to you and that the rest of the world should listen and obey?

How you decide to personally authenticate God is certainly your business. But, how God authenticates himself to the world as a whole is another matter altogether. No one has the right to compelled another person to exclusively follow after an allegedly divine voice-- not until a universal form of authentication is established for God.

I don't see that happening any time soon . . .

Think about it. Would you want me telling you what God you should be serving?

Interesting TED talk about the Cyrus Cylinder

Neil MacGregor gives an interesting talk about the Cyrus Cylinder. 

Click the link to open the video:


An Interesting TED Talk About the Cyrus Cylinder

That Evolution Thingy

I suppose trying to conclude that God doesn't exist because of evolution is unfair. After all, one can still argue that God exists and simply accept that evolution is really how God created life. However, evolution imposes a great discredit upon the biblical text. You just can't take the bible literally if you accept the implications of evolution.

As the bible becomes discredited, what do you use to uphold your religious beliefs? Religion then, becomes subjective and personal. That's why I think the founding fathers elected to keep State and Church separate – regardless of how religious or non-religious any of the founding fathers might have been. But . . . that's a future blog.

I had lots of doubts about evolution most of my life. Okay, okay, I just simply never accepted evolution; it just sounded stupid. “Geeze”, I thought, “isn't it obvious that we don't come from apes and monkeys”? I was convinced that scientist were taking fragments of fossils and erroneously building up these crazy skeletons straight from their wild and desperate imaginations.

But during my gradual descent (assent, perhaps?) into apostasy, I visited various religious message boards in an attempt to hold fast to my faith. As I was soul searching, I read an exchange on a message board that stuck with me:

Person one: I still want to believe in God and keep my faith, but that evolution thingy is kind of convincing”

Person two: Well, remember, it's called the theory of evolution. Theories are supported by evidence and their ideas have made predictions that are verifiable and proven. You have to disprove a theory before people turn from it. So in the case of evolution, it's a fact – not something people are still trying to prove.

(this is a paraphrase, but you get the point . . .)

I didn't quite agree with Person Two.

That is . . . until I met Sue. Sue totally changed my outlook.

You know Sue. That menacing T-Rex that you can visit at the Chicago Field Museum. Scientists excavated every bone of Sue and rebuilt her skeleton. The end result is a menacing eating machine staring down at you.

She's mean looking, too.

I had a little more respect for what scientist would dig up out of the dirt.

Then, I would start to pay attention to primate findings. These findings were not as incomplete as I had once thought. Forensics can revel a lot of reliable information even on bones hundreds of thousands of years old.

At the Field Museum, I did notice hominid bones were on display, too. Unfortunately at the time, I didn't pay too much attention to them. I still wasn't too convinced about that "evolution thingy". But, my interest in archaeological finds grew by leaps and bounds and I came to trust what scientists say about the bones they find and examine. Granted, you can't trust every thing you hear. And one can forget that scientist are making suggestions much of the time. Not everything scientists conclude is ready to be labeled a fact.

But some conclusions have been proven for a long time now.

Sorry to say -- but I really, really think that evolution thingy is actually real.

On top of all the other evidences of evolution, this point sealed the deal for me:

Scientists have found a way to extract DNA from Neanderthal bones. You know, just like they do to find out if that person really committed that awful crime.

Or, when they find out who your baby's daddy really is.

That is the same type of DNA evidence that lets us see how and why a tiger and a lion are so similar, yet different. Yes, this was extracted from Neanderthal bones. That same information that illustrates the way a lion is genetically different enough to be another species, yet is still a cat like a tiger, was extracted and examined from Neanderthals!

And what do the DNA results say?

Neanderthals don't seem to be major contributors to the homo sapien's DNA. We are not decedents of Neanderthals -- but rather -- we are cousins! DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains are too different from homo sapiens found during that same era to be the same species. Again, it's like finding the bones of a tiger and a lion! They're both cats – but different! Well, we've found that Neanderthals and homo sapiens were both human – just different!

Wow!

Wait. Did you say two species of human?

Well, what makes us human, exactly? Well, according to Joseph Campbell, the capacity to look into the metaphysical and to use reason makes us human. To look out into the universe and attempt to explain it with mythology, religion, or reason (ironically) is a unique human trait. None of the other animals seem to do this. Neanderthals most likely had this capacity. They drew on the cave walls and expressed mythological symbols. So, Neanderthals displayed human qualities no different from the earliest appearance of modern man hundreds of thousands of years ago. And this is all based upon archaeological information.

Being human isn't the same as being a hominid. Hominids are an order of primates that include the human ancestry as well as man's primate cousins like chimps, gorillas and orangutans.

Neanderthals are also hominids and are our closest DNA relatives that we've found to date. They are such close relatives that they are a separate species of human. Chimps are our closest living relatives based on DNA – since Neanderthals are now extinct. We don't consider chimps to be human despite how much they remind us of ourselves. Nonetheless, chimps are hominids of the primate family and can at times act strikingly human.

Archaeological finds show that Neanderthals and modern man (homo sapiens) shared artifacts like jewelry, pottery and tools – as if they traded or bartered goods together. This indicates that Neanderthals were just as human as the homo sapiens.

Below are some articles that spell out the DNA findings. I find the placement of their excitement interesting. The articles express that the real break-through is the reliable extraction of DNA from a specimen tens of thousands of years old. The fact that the Neanderthals' DNA confirmed a different species of human causes a stir mostly because so many hypothesized that homo sapiens were direct descendants of Neanderthals.

But you know what really stood out to me? I noticed no excitement about how this finding further confirms evolution. The lack of excitement concerning the notion that this “evolution thingy” is true is old news.

I think the excitement in the scientific community happened after they all finished reading Origins of the Species back in the 1800s.

Just so you know I'm not pulling everything I'm saying out of the air -- check out these links when you have time:

DNA Abstracts
Archaeology.org
Neanderthals
National Geographic: Last of the Neanderthals
Meet 'Wilma'

Always Right, Even When It's Wrong

I recently read a comment on-line where someone gave a rebuttal to the argument that the Biblical text had inconsistencies and contradictions within it. It went something like:

Even with the alleged contradictions of the Bible text, the events to which the text points still could have happened. Mis-representation of an event doesn't mean the event did not still happen. For example -- if a person finds and confirms a bona fide contradiction between the Gospel accounts about the Resurrection, the Resurrection still remains possible and has not been dis-proven. The contradiction only means that writers were slightly incorrect about their accounts. Perhaps this even proves the accounts because the variation in story is natural when multiple views are given of the same account by witnesses.

(this is only a paraphrase, by the way)

Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.

But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!

Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!

After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:

What must be true if the Bible is true?

What must be true if the Bible is only a myth?

If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?

Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.

And what if the Bible is myth?

We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.

Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.

Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.

History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.

Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.

Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.

As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.

So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.

Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.

So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.

But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.

But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.

Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.

This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.

If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?

What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?

What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?

Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?

And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?

Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.

And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.

According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.

But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?

Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.

But, it gets worse.

God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.

So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?

We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.

Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?

For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.

I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.

God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?

Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.

Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.

How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?

Archaeology – the CSI of the Past

I'm astonished at how science and logic enables someone to piece together clues that can unveil the unknown. I started trusting science much more after realizing this. Upon this realization, I also began to notice a correlation between my level of trust in science and the weakening of faith concerning my religious beliefs.

Years ago, I saw one of the many episodes of America's Most Wanted where a man had avoided the law for quite a while. The FBI only had very old photos of this certain fugitive. This fact contributed to the fugitive's success in staying on the run. Since law enforcement couldn't post current images of the fugitive's face, the public wasn't able to contribute any tips to the FBI or police.

But, guess what? The FBI put together a team that examined the skeletal structure of the man's face from the older photos. Then, they applied age progression techniques to figure how he might look in the present. With these techniques, the experts generated a photograph and a bust to present to the public.

When the man was finally captured, I was utterly shocked at the resemblance between the fugitive and the bust made by the FBI. Experts seemingly predicted how he looked in the present by using pictures which were decades old.

The bust pinned him down with razor accuracy.

So, when I saw Nation Geographic do a bust of King Tutankhamen, I trusted the work. I couldn't forget what happened on America's Most Wanted; I was too impressed by the previous work from other experts to believe that King Tut's bust was a sham.

Then, later, I saw a bust of Queen Nefertiti done by Discovery magazine online. I will point out however that this bust does looks quite different from ancient busts made long ago. Then again, the mummy found may not actually be Nefertiti. But still, I'm fascinated at how today people could make a life-like bust from the bone structure of a photograph or from ancient remains.

Here's a question . . . if you walk into any given room in your home and find red marker scribbled all over your wall . . . and let's assume you have children living with you . . . who did it?

Well, you should look at the evidence before jumping to conclusions. I did say children . . . so you have to conclude which child did it – or if all of them were in on it.

One child blames the other sibling(s) and boldly proclaims he or she isn't guilty.

However, the child who is proclaiming innocence has red marker smeared all over his or her hands. The other child or children don't, however. Also, the marker gives off a distinct fume that is all over only one child – the one with marker smeared on the hands; however, still claiming innocence.

So then, who “dun” it?

The little lair standing in front of you.

The more I watched shows on the Discovery, Science, and History channels, the more archeology started reminding me of the CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I enjoyed watching people from the world of archeology take bits of evidence and piece together the past and uncover more realistic ideas about what really happened in history.

I started respecting archeology.

So, then, I wanted to read more about it concerning my faith. Surely, if my faith is true, archeology will prove it. Especially since my Thompson Chain Reference Bible had that huge archeology section in the back.

So, I started with a title that I hoped would really prove it all for me – The Bible Unearthed.

I won't dare try to review The Bible Unearthed here. Check out reviews on Amazon or better yet, buy it and read it!

I'll let you decide for yourself if you trust it as a scholarly work.

But for me, that book shattered my faith into splinters. It was the final blow that penetrated my hard shell religious beliefs.

The Bible Unearthed demonstrates through archeology that Israel's Judaism evolved from other ancient folk religions. Israel never left Egypt to come to Canaan according to The Bible Unearthed. The Israelites developed as a people and culture from and among the Canaanite culture already surrounding them.

Follow the implications of that idea and you can see why my faith failed under a crushing, fatal blow.

If Judaism never happened like the Bible says it did, how about Christianity?! After all, Christianity is deeply rooted into Judaism – why it hinges on it!

Oh man, the thought! You mean to say that Yahweh did not personally hand Judaism down to Abraham and Moses?! You mean that Judaism evolved from the Canaanite culture instead?!

If this is true, then the Bible is nothing more than a series of literary works by mere men – so much lower in status than being the inerrant Word of God.

Would an inerrant God issue out his Word in a text that contains errancy, myths and legends?

If God would do something like that, please explain to me how or why.

Such an explanation would clear up a lot of important things for me.

Who the Heck is Gilgamesh?

History has a way of bringing about rude awakenings. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such history lesson that can blast preconceived notions out of the water – at least for those who never heard of him before.

Who in the heck is Gilgamesh, anyway?!

The story of Gilgamesh has elements that are eerily familiar to the story of Noah. I won't dare try to recount the story here. Look it up and check it out for yourself. But for me, a pre-Noah story contained in the Gilgamesh Epic was problematic for me as a Biblical fundamentalists. One of the oldest recorded pieces of literature unearthed from one of the oldest recorded societies in history has a flood story that predates the Biblical manuscript. At first I thought, “So what? Many cultures have a flood story”. But, the dating of the Gilgamesh Epic kept begging the thought that Noah's Ark was a retelling of certain parts of the Gilgamesh Epic.

But for a die hard Christian like I was, I told myself that Gilgamesh was simply confirmation of Noah's trek across the flooded earth. Civilization simply had perverted versions of the true story concerning Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic just happened to be the oldest version written down on a stone tablet. Age didn't make Gilgamesh right or true.

But, I still didn't like knowing that this bit of archeology existed. What a bummer!

And I didn't like reading about a fellow named Sargon, King of Akkad. Before the Exodus story of Moses could have happened, Sargon was floating down the river in a basket. His mother secretly sent him down a river and he was drawn out and raised as someone else's son. And, well, I suppose he became royalty one day, since he's called King of Akkad.

A thread was forming; Stories in the Bible were mirroring older non-biblical narratives. I didn't want to say it, but the Bible looked like it was copying from other works in history. Legends and folk tales appeared to be passed around from culture to culture. Other god-men, other flood stories, other babies floating down the river – all older than the Biblical text.

Maybe those archaeologists and scientist just don't know how to date things. They don't really know what they're doing. Besides, the world started off with two people. We all have the same history and ancestry. It just all got perverted over time as our various cultures developed. This stuff means nothing!

At least, that what I said to myself at the time.

I hung in there. At least now, I better understood the skeptic. I could understand why they were so stubborn in their disbelief. I was starting to realize that you really had to know your stuff to witness to a skeptic.


However, the more I learned . . . . the more I started to feel like a skeptic, too.